Quantcast
Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

JPL78 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:

Well, there was that period after Sandy Hook when AR-15's were purchased in record numbers. I realize that was a response to the call for an assault rifle ban not the actual shooting. It is creepy however that a gun most recently know for shooting a bunch of school kids immediately became the hot, must have item for gun enthusiasts.

you mean to tell me the most popular gun in america, that liberal statists have such an irrational fear of that they pee themselves by the mere utterance of its name, had a sales spike after said liberals wanted it banned because... um reasons... its evil.

And this is somehow gun manufacturers faults. It sounds like its the statists in the gun control loby and their acolytes in congress fault.


No, I meant to tell you what I told you. Learn to read. The AR-15 sold more after Sandy Hook. I didn't say it was the manufacturers fault, don't put words into my mouth. You are a rube if you think they Bushmaster didn't profit from the whole senario though.

its a shame too, because bushmaster makes very poor to average ARs.

if only  the media, politicians and the anti-self protection lobby werent so ignorant of firearms, and actually knew "what a" bushmaster actually was. there just were told that term and really didnt know what it meant



 

Around the Network
DD_Bwest said:
JPL78 said:

Well, there was that period after Sandy Hook when AR-15's were purchased in record numbers. I realize that was a response to the call for an assault rifle ban not the actual shooting. It is creepy however that a gun most recently know for shooting a bunch of school kids immediately became the hot, must have item for gun enthusiasts.

it didnt suddenly become so popular,  its always been the most popular rifle in the US.   so its natural that if something is the most popular you will see a huge sales spike on talk that it could be banned.

Sales rose. I went out and bought Too Human when they announced a court order to take it off the shelves. I understand. In case of the AR-15, I still think it is creepy because of the obvious mass shootings associations. I wouldn't personally want to own one. My point was only that Bushmaster did indeed profit from the shooting.

in the aftermath of the purposed ban, which failed, there have been dozens of PRO-GUN laws passed. Gun ownership is actually more of a guarantee than ever before. I really don't see why people like "Rambo" SocialSlayer seem to think his beloved hobby is under attack. It's not based in reality. If liberals want to call for action against guns they have that right. They aren't achieving anything and that upsets some people. I'm glad it does. If no one cared I would be really worried about the state of things.



SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:

Well, there was that period after Sandy Hook when AR-15's were purchased in record numbers. I realize that was a response to the call for an assault rifle ban not the actual shooting. It is creepy however that a gun most recently know for shooting a bunch of school kids immediately became the hot, must have item for gun enthusiasts.

you mean to tell me the most popular gun in america, that liberal statists have such an irrational fear of that they pee themselves by the mere utterance of its name, had a sales spike after said liberals wanted it banned because... um reasons... its evil.

And this is somehow gun manufacturers faults. It sounds like its the statists in the gun control loby and their acolytes in congress fault.


No, I meant to tell you what I told you. Learn to read. The AR-15 sold more after Sandy Hook. I didn't say it was the manufacturers fault, don't put words into my mouth. You are a rube if you think they Bushmaster didn't profit from the whole senario though.

its a shame too, because bushmaster makes very poor to average ARs.

if only  the media, politicians and the anti-self protection lobby werent so ignorant of firearms, and actually knew "what a" bushmaster actually was. there just were told that term and really didnt know what it meant


That goes both ways. I remember at the hearings Ted Cruz saying a foregrip was "just a piece of plastic" and all these attachments on guns are purely cosmetic. Now I'm not mister gun knowledge but as a gamer I understand that a foregrip gives you extra stability most commonly associated with reducing recoil and increasing accuracy across successive fast rounds.

So both liberals and conservatives are ignorant about things. Either that or being purposefully misrepresentative. I wouldn't really take stock in what any of them say. I mean, you do realize most of those those liberal politicians you hate voted AGAINST all recently purposed gun control right?



lol, all this speculation is a waste of everyone's time

Fact 1: Guns will never be banned in the United States. No politician who wants to win elections will take that step. At best, we'll have more ridiculous laws about magazine sizes, semi-autos and other meaningless junk

Fact 2: All this faux gun ban scares are probably stemming from the very same people selling the guns so you can keep stashing them up while they reign in the profits

Fact 3: Obama doesn't care how many guns you have. His speeches on the topic are just that...something to say on the issue to get abolitionists of his case. He has the most security in the country and probably doesn't care if you get shot or go on a shooting spree



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

JPL78 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:

Well, there was that period after Sandy Hook when AR-15's were purchased in record numbers. I realize that was a response to the call for an assault rifle ban not the actual shooting. It is creepy however that a gun most recently know for shooting a bunch of school kids immediately became the hot, must have item for gun enthusiasts.

you mean to tell me the most popular gun in america, that liberal statists have such an irrational fear of that they pee themselves by the mere utterance of its name, had a sales spike after said liberals wanted it banned because... um reasons... its evil.

And this is somehow gun manufacturers faults. It sounds like its the statists in the gun control loby and their acolytes in congress fault.


No, I meant to tell you what I told you. Learn to read. The AR-15 sold more after Sandy Hook. I didn't say it was the manufacturers fault, don't put words into my mouth. You are a rube if you think they Bushmaster didn't profit from the whole senario though.

its a shame too, because bushmaster makes very poor to average ARs.

if only  the media, politicians and the anti-self protection lobby werent so ignorant of firearms, and actually knew "what a" bushmaster actually was. there just were told that term and really didnt know what it meant


That goes both ways. I remember at the hearings Ted Cruz saying a foregrip was "just a piece if plastic" and all these attachments on guns are purely cosmetic. Now I'm not mister gun knowledge but as a gamer I understand that a foregrip gives you extra stability most commonly associated with reducing recoil and increasing accuracy across successive fast rounds.

So both liberals and conservatives are ignorant about things. Either that or being purposefully misrepresentative. I wouldn't really take stock in what any of them say. I mean, you do realize those liberal politicians you hate voted AGAINST all recently purposed gun control right?

it doesnt really give you stability rather just comfort. it is essentially a piece of plastic, one that aids in comfortablility and not much else.

Ive shot numerous weapons and have qualified up to 500 yds, every time the Marine Corps has issued me an M-16, it has been without a foregrip.



 

Around the Network
McDonaldsGuy said:
HipHopGodd said:
 

While I do think our political views align for the most part I will say this: If guns are ever in fact made illegal, the shootings would neither cease nor subside. We've become a culture that feels it's better to destroy the opposition than come to an agreement. If we didn't have guns we'd use knives. If not knives, blunt objects. If not blunt objects... rocks and stones. Happens all over the world unfortunately.

On the same day as Sandy Hook, a Chinese man stabbed 22 children.

26 people died in Sandy Hook, including 20 children.

0 died in China.

PLEASE I would BEG for mass murderers to use knives instead of guns.

I agree, fireguns are just a very effective way to kill. It would be much easier for people around to act against a psycho who's using a knife or stones to attack than it is to defend against someone with a firearm. The attacker would also be much more hesitant to do it without such power at hand.



SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:

That goes both ways. I remember at the hearings Ted Cruz saying a foregrip was "just a piece if plastic" and all these attachments on guns are purely cosmetic. Now I'm not mister gun knowledge but as a gamer I understand that a foregrip gives you extra stability most commonly associated with reducing recoil and increasing accuracy across successive fast rounds.

So both liberals and conservatives are ignorant about things. Either that or being purposefully misrepresentative. I wouldn't really take stock in what any of them say. I mean, you do realize those liberal politicians you hate voted AGAINST all recently purposed gun control right?

it doesnt really give you stability rather just comfort. it is essentially a piece of plastic, one that aids in comfortablility and not much else.

Ive shot numerous weapons and have qualified up to 500 yds, every time the Marine Corps has issued me an M-16, it has been without a foregrip.

You would make a good politician :)



JPL78 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
JPL78 said:

That goes both ways. I remember at the hearings Ted Cruz saying a foregrip was "just a piece if plastic" and all these attachments on guns are purely cosmetic. Now I'm not mister gun knowledge but as a gamer I understand that a foregrip gives you extra stability most commonly associated with reducing recoil and increasing accuracy across successive fast rounds.

So both liberals and conservatives are ignorant about things. Either that or being purposefully misrepresentative. I wouldn't really take stock in what any of them say. I mean, you do realize those liberal politicians you hate voted AGAINST all recently purposed gun control right?

it doesnt really give you stability rather just comfort. it is essentially a piece of plastic, one that aids in comfortablility and not much else.

Ive shot numerous weapons and have qualified up to 500 yds, every time the Marine Corps has issued me an M-16, it has been without a foregrip.

You would make a good politician :)

i take that as a compliment.

but what i said still holds true. as someone who fancys himself as a firearms enthusist, I cant really notice any determinable difference when firing with or without a foregrip, other than the angle of my hand being slightly more comfortable with the grip.

i do have something called the grip-pod which is both a foregrip and a bi-pod, that helps me when i shoot in the prone posistion



 

JPL78 said:

Well, we both know the answer to that. Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you but I don't think you realize that you are making lots of blanketed generalized statement. If the actual truth lies somewhere between white and black and one needs to fully understand a situation in order to form an opinion then you can't turn around and say things like "everyone does this, everyone does that."  When even you know that is not accurate.

Of course I know I'm making a generalization. One can't possibly talk about a large group of people without doing so. It goes without saying that any observation about such a large group doesn't apply to every single member of the group, so it's a waste of time to preface every statement with, "Now I'm not saying this applies to every individual..."

Most people are pretty shockingly uninformed (or worse, misinformed) about even basic things, and any sane person is going to be ignorant if we measure ignorance as a person's knowledge vs. the vastness of the federal government's activity. It would be impossible to know more than a small fraction about what the government does without making a career of it. And since any group of people is functionally stupider than the average of its components, I don't think it's particularly arrogant or unkind to say that the body politic isn't too smart.



Let me start by saying I am more or less on your side of the issue. I don't own the gun. But I don't care if my neighbor owns one for hunting, or as a hobby, or to feel safer. With that said let me give you some advice.

There is way too much passion. It is clear you are very anti gun control. That means you have a very obvious agenda, and I should be very cautious when reading your post.

Now honestly most of what you are saying might be completely true. But the way you are talking won't convince anyone on the opposite side or in the middle of the issue. You are just pandering to your side and politicizing the issue yourself.

Let me give you an example on how to improve.

On the off chance that you need a reminder that money cannot buy you brains, I give you the ultra-rich, ultra-liberal, ultra-anti-gun, ultra-moron, Michael Moore who, in a statement he posted on Facebook, blames, among other things, congress for not passing stricter gun laws that “90% of Americans want”.  Hey genius, this incident happened in CA, where all of those stricter gun laws you claim that 90% of us want already exist.  This once again proves what we (those of us who can actually use our brains) have been saying for decades:  More gun laws cannot possibly prevent crimes like this.

Note the things I highlighted. Avoid statements like those. They are exactly the type of venom that for some reason both sides use, even though they just make the other side look at you with animosity, and make people who haven't formed opinions tend the ignore you.

Had you written something like this, it would have been far more effective at convincing people who don't share your opinion.

Michael Moore who, in a statement he posted on Facebook, blames, among other things, congress for not passing stricter gun laws that “90% of Americans want”.  But the sad truth is that this incidident is an example of even strict gun control laws not working. Despite all the precautions that the state of California takes towards gun ownership. This man still managed to get a gun. Where there is a will, there is a way. If someone wants to get a gun, he will find a way to get one. More gun laws cannot possibly prevent crimes like this.